Minnesota
Minnesota requires publicly funded forensic labs to be accredited but has no forensic science commission or analyst license. Since 2023 the State has given a BCA advisory group a duty to review lab audits and accreditation reports, set a 90-day target for testing sexual assault kits, removed probable-cause DNA collection from statute, required consent, a court order, or a warrant to take DNA from a minor, and eased the time bar for new scientific evidence.
At a glance
- Oversight body
- No independent body. The Forensic Laboratory Advisory Board (Minn. Stat. 299C.156) was repealed in 2014. Since August 1, 2023, the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Advisory Group must review and advise the BCA superintendent on audits, accreditation reports, and internal reviews of the bureau, and on emerging technologies in law enforcement and forensic science (299C.65 subd. 1a(d)). Its biennial report covers those reviews (subd. 3a). The group is advisory, has no enforcement power, and covers the BCA only. The Commissioner of Public Safety posts lab accreditation certificates online (299C.157 subd. 2).
- Lab accreditation
- Required. Since July 1, 2015, no publicly funded forensic lab may operate unless accredited, except that labs opened or reopened after July 1, 2011, and labs adding a new discipline, get a set period to become accredited (Minn. Stat. 299C.157). DNA labs need the FBI Quality Assurance Standards plus ISO/IEC 17025. Toxicology, controlled substances, and trace need ISO/IEC 17025. Latent prints, impressions, firearms, toolmarks, questioned documents, and bloodstain pattern analysis need ISO/IEC 17025 or 17020. Medical examiners and coroners, educational institutions, clinical labs, and medical facilities are excluded, and private labs fall outside the definition. Disciplines not listed, such as digital evidence, are not expressly covered. The statute sets no penalty.
- Analyst licensing
- None
- Admissibility standard
- Frye-Mack, under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702 as amended effective September 1, 2006 (Minn. R. Evid. 702). Every expert opinion needs foundational reliability, and a novel scientific theory also needs general acceptance in the relevant scientific community; the 2006 committee comment cites Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000). Minnesota has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No changed-science statute. A person may move for fingerprint or forensic DNA testing not available at trial (590.01 subd. 1a) and may petition for relief when that testing establishes actual innocence (subd. 1). The two-year deadline has an exception for newly discovered evidence, “including scientific evidence” (subd. 4(b)(2)), which was eased in 2024.
- DNA database scope
- Conviction-based. Courts must order DNA from anyone convicted of a felony and juveniles adjudicated for one (609.117). Officers must collect from people convicted of or adjudicated for listed violent offenses and patterned sex offenders (299C.105 subd. 1). Since August 1, 2024, DNA may not be taken from a minor without a parent’s or custodian’s consent, a court order, or a warrant (260B.009).
Changes, 2023 to 2026
New warrantless drone uses; facial recognition limit unchanged
Minn. Stat. 626.19 subd. 3 now allows warrantless drone use “to document evidence that is at imminent risk of destruction” and “to facilitate the active search for a missing person.” Training flights over private areas are allowed with the occupant’s written consent. Subdivision 4(b), which bars drones with facial recognition unless a warrant expressly authorizes it, was not amended.
For practitioners: Drone evidence gathered without a warrant must fit one of the listed uses.
DNA from a minor needs consent, a court order, or a warrant
New Minn. Stat. 260B.009 says a biological specimen for DNA analysis “must not be taken from a minor without the consent of the minor’s parent or custodian, a court order, or a warrant.” A minor whose specimen was taken in violation may move to suppress the results as evidence and to have the specimen destroyed.
For practitioners: In a juvenile case, ask how the DNA was obtained and move to suppress if none of the three applied.
Probable-cause DNA collection removed from statute
The act deleted the language in 299C.105 subd. 1 that covered people who had a judicial probable cause determination on a listed charge, and the matching juvenile language. Collection under the section now follows conviction or adjudication only. A 2006 Court of Appeals decision, In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484, is reported to have held the probable-cause clauses unconstitutional, which would make this a conforming change; that decision could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.
For practitioners: A profile taken on probable cause alone has no basis in the current statute.
New scientific evidence no longer must prove innocence to beat the time bar
Under 590.01 subd. 4(b)(2), newly discovered evidence, including scientific evidence, must now provide “facts necessary to sustain one or more legally cognizable claims for postconviction relief.” It must still have been undiscoverable with due diligence within two years, and it may not be cumulative or for impeachment. The act deleted the rule that the evidence establish the petitioner’s innocence by a clear and convincing standard. The State’s time to respond under 590.03 went from 20 to 45 days.
For practitioners: A late claim based on a discredited method no longer has to prove innocence to get past the time bar, but it must be filed within two years of when the claim arose.
No facial recognition in license data checks for TSA Registered Traveler
An amendment to 171.12 subd. 7b lets the commissioner use noncompliant licenses and ID cards to verify identity for TSA Registered Traveler participants, limited to listed data and credential security features, “which does not include facial recognition.”
For practitioners: Narrow; this is not a rule on police use.
BCA advisory group to review audits, accreditation, and forensic technology
New 299C.65 subd. 1a(d) gives the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information and BCA Advisory Group the duty to review and advise the superintendent on audits, accreditation reports, and internal reviews of the bureau; on “emerging technologies in the law enforcement and forensic science fields”; and on privacy policies. Its biennial report must cover these reviews.
For practitioners: The group’s reports may describe BCA lab audits and accreditation findings.
90-day testing target for sexual assault kits
New 299C.106 subd. 3(c) and (d). From July 1, 2024, the receiving lab “must strive” to test kits within 90 days, give them priority with other violent crimes, update the tracking database, and tell the submitting agency about any kit not tested in 90 days, with an estimated completion time. The same act appropriated $4,500,000 in fiscal 2024 and $3,500,000 in fiscal 2025 to the BCA to cut turnaround times for forensic processing of evidence.
For practitioners: The target is not a hard deadline, but late kits must generate a notice to the agency.
Fingerprints and photos destroyed after mistaken-identity arrests
The BCA or the arresting agency must destroy a person’s fingerprints, photographs, and other identification data, with all copies, without a petition, when the agency finds the arrest came from mistaken identity before charging, or when the prosecutor declines charges or a grand jury does not indict on that basis. The prosecutor must notify the BCA and the arresting agency. The subdivision covers identification data other than DNA.
For practitioners: Confirm destruction for a client arrested by mistaken identity.
Carjacking added to the DNA collection list
Adds carjacking under section 609.247 to the adult and juvenile offense lists in 299C.105 subd. 1.
For practitioners: A conforming change after carjacking became its own crime.
Pending bills
No bills are pending. The 2026 regular session has adjourned, and no 2026 session law amended 299C.105, 299C.157, 590.01, or 626.19.
- The 90-day kit testing target in 299C.106 subd. 3(c) expires June 30, 2029. Minn. Stat. 299C.106
Checked and unchanged
- 299C.157 (lab accreditation) is unchanged since 2014, and 299C.155 (DNA analysis standards) since 2005. Rule 702 is unchanged since 2006.
- 590.01 subd. 1a (forensic testing motion) is unchanged. 626.19 subd. 4(b) (drone facial recognition limit) is unchanged since 2020.
- The DNA tolling paragraph of 628.26 was relettered in 2023, 2025, and 2026; its text is unchanged.
- No genetic genealogy, rapid DNA, familial search, or analyst licensing statute was found. No general police facial recognition statute was found.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Minnesota forensic science oversight: Forensic Science Tracker,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.